D&D 5E A Class Thread By Any Other Name...

[steeldragons]

So, don't ask why the "Are you satisfied with the Fighter" poll/thread set my mind off on this tangent.

But I got to thinking why/how things would have gone IF the 5e game had been released in a symmetrical way across class lines. i.e., some classes have 3 options, many 2, and for some reason clerics and wizards getting 7 or 8 each...at the very least the "big 4" could have been given equal options with the more specialized class concepts (paladins, monks, warlocks, etc...) having fewer.

Would it have limited or expanded the class options for 5e? Would it have limited or expanded the options for future publications and rolling releases (like the UA articles that threw out options for over a year)? Would it have been preferable or not to the fans?

Here's what I'm thinking/dreaming 5e could'should have looked like:

Fighters:

• Champion [because I can't think of a better name]: the default "simple" fighter.
• Knight: the more complex "maneuvers" fighter. A focus on combat excellence and battlefield control. Similar to the Battlemaster we have now with a more clear description/explanation that this can be your samurais and kensais as easily as western chivalric knights.
• Swashbuckler: the "dex" fighter. Combat superiority through speed, acrobatic, and movement based features.
• Eldritch Warrior: the "Eldritch Knight" 1/3rd arcane caster we have now. Ain't broke. Don't need to fix it.
• Crusader: the "Holy Warrior" a 1/3rd divine caster modeled after the Eldritch Knight but with cleric spell list. Paladin-lite.

Mages["Wizards"]:

• Mage: the default generalist arcane magic-user.
• Illusionist: specialist "tricky" mage, mostly as written but spell selection limited to all Illusions, Enchantments, Divinations, and up to 3rd level Conjurations and Abjurations.
• Evoker: specialist "blasty" mage, mostly as written but spell selection limited to all Evocations, Transmutations, Abjurations, and up to 3rd level Conjurations and Divinations.
• Necromancer: specialist "dark/broody/misunderstood[or just plain evil]" mage, mostly as written, but spell selection limited to all Necromancy, Conjurations, Abjurations, and up to 3rd level Transmutations and Divinations.
• Swordcaster: specialist "mage-warrior," 1/2-caster progression; light armor to begin (medium armor as middling/high level feature), choice of 2 martial weapons added to proficiency list (to start, adding weapons as you increase level); may choose 1st and 2nd level spells from any school, must choose any 2 schools of magic to select 3rd and higher level spells from.

Clerics:

• Advocate: the "default/classic" cleric, limited weapons, armor and shields, divine spells, channeling/turning undead.
• Healer: specialist cleric who is adept at healing magic ("vivomancy"), channeling positive energies (extra good against undead), removing curses and afflictions, added spellcasting or channeling options to balance less or no armor, less or no weapons.
• Oracle: a specialist cleric who speaks for their deity with divine power, channeling is their speciality.
• Priest: a specialist cleric who is the wandering ascetic, the friar, the preacher, the tender of the community, more battlefield "control" type abilities/channeling, dealing with crowds, heightened interactive skills (persuasion and insight).
• Templar: the "church militant," defender of the faithful and arm of divine justice, heavy armor, more combat abilities, a 1/2-caster progression -spellcasting and channeling suffer in lieu of more martial skills/features. A Paladin by any other name...

Some very power deities/widespread religions offer branches of their hierarchy in all of these areas, some only one or two. For a simpler game, it is recommended that all/any organized religion of a world/setting/campaign would offer, at minimum, the Advocate (for PCs) and Priest (for NPCs) options.

Rogues:

• Thief: the default Rogue, as written. Nothin' wrong there.
• Assassin: the specialist "killing" Rogue, as written. Lil' extra strength stuff, lil' extra damage/killin' stuff.
• Acrobat: the specialist "bouncing" Rogue with more movement[flippy tumbling]/speed stuff, some entertainment flavor, unarmored defense, slow fall, save bonuses against grappling/stunning/etc..., uncanny dodging/evasion.
• Trickster: the specialist "tricky magic/jester" Rogue, "Arcane Trickster" as written, 1/3rd arcane/illusion caster.
• Avenger: the specialist "works for the church/I'm a Bravo/Wanna play Assassin's Creed?" Rogue, a bit of acrobatics, a bit of assassin, a bit of thief, and 1/3rd caster progression as the Trickster, but using cleric spells.

"Second tier" specialty/specific flavor classes:
Barbarian:

• Berserker: battle-raging damage-dealing default barbarian dude, as written.
• Maurauder: stealthy stealing damage-dealing, a barbarian with thief add-ons.
• Shield-Basher: a sword and board expert, extra [forced movement?] attack with shield, bonuses for fighting with/adjacent to others, "Brunhilde/shield maidens" and "shield-wall using viking" types.
• Slayer: a monster-hunter par excellence, "ranger on steroids" type. Beowulf.
• Totem: shamany magicky barbarian, as written.

Druid:

• Land: the default guardian of the [terrain type specific] land druid, as written.
• Green: the plant/vegetation specific druid, perhaps a bit fae-obsessed/-touched, the "hedge/green mage" type.
• Hunt: the animal summoner and controller, better at battle, take on animal traits?
• Spirit: the Shaman, spirit [fey, elemental, "nature" or "ancestral" spirits] summoner, communicator, and controller.
• Moon: the shapeshifter druid, mostly as written, perhaps some more expanded forms/powers.

Ranger:

• Hunter: the default NON-casting ranger, wilderness warrior with stealth and skill in his terrain against his recurring enemies. Pretty much, as written.
• Beastmaster: a specialist ranger skilled at training and controlling animals, animal empathy, extra attacks or actions with/through the animal, scaling beast companion. Could be flufed as magical-ish ability, but no actual spellcasting or explicitly magical ability.
• Scout: a specialist extra-thiefy ranger, reconnaissance specialist, movement features, enhanced senses.
• Warden: a specialist ranger with a bit more of a nose for the magical, druid/fae friend, more the 1e-style ranger, essentially the wilderness warrior/hunter archetype with "Forgotten lore" offering 1/3rd casting progression using druid magic and druidic or arcane magic item use.
• Inquisitor: a tracker par excellence/bounty hunter/detective, usually with divine purpose or religious affiliation but a non-affiliated (or formerly affiliated?) type works too, particularly good with divination magics, 1/3rd caster of clerical magic.

Sorcerer: basically keep things as written, "innate magic" features, spell points and meta-magic, add light armors (medium armor at middling/higher level), add some [more than "simple"] weapon choices, based from an ancestral or environmental "origin," just add some obvious origins we didn't get initially.

• Dragon (ancestry)
• Fae (ancestry)
• Infernal (environmental or fiendish ancestry)
• Wild (environmental or pretty much any ancestry)
• Storm (environmental or elemental/fae/djinni ancestry)

 

[steeldragons]

The "Tertiary" class options of very specific flavor and origins...class power structure is not the same as other classes.

Warlock: keep the at-will "invocations" magic, make them half-caster progression, light armor, simple weapons. Basically everything else as written with the obvious additions of [the most obvious/common] patron types that were not originally offered. Easy peasy patron squeezy.

• Fae: as written.
• Fiend: as written, but a bit more of the Pact/contract being bad for you and "evil" tainting/turning -granting apparent power "beyond" other patron options...as its destroying you.
• "GOO": Cthulu in duh howse. As the fiend option, but with Madness on the rise instead of turning evil.
• Celestial: let's call this one the "Favored Soul" not that you are "chosen," and thus "favored," but you are a soul that has been GRANTED "favors." Radiant energy/damage, whatever other celestial flavored warlocky invocations.
• Genie/Elemental: the Sha'ir, specific elemental focused, genie grants access to additional spells.

Paladin: keep half-caster progession, channeling auras is their thing, basically as written.

• Devotion: the default 1e Lawful Good guys.
• Ancients: seems, as written, this is for the paladins that want to be "Good" or perhaps "Neutral" above/beyond being "Lawful."
• Vengeance: though Id dislike it, I fail to see a relevant option to replace it with. Presumably for the "Chaotic" alignment "paladins" [as if that's supposed to be a thing].
• Justiciar: I'm going to flip that script and say these are the "paladins" that are about being "Lawful" and establishing/promoting/defending "Order" above/beyond the "Good."
• Blackguard: the old oathbreaker and evil "anti-paladin."

Bard: keep the inspiration dice, make them half-caster progression, light armor to start add medium armor at middling/higher level.

• Loremaster: the default information/story/legend gathering and tale-telling bard, a walking archive, scholar, diplomat, historian, spell selection from cleric, druid or wizard lists.
• Warlord: the specialized warrior-poet "Valor" scald-bard, as written, maybe add in heavy armors and more martial weapons.
• Soothsayer: the specialized runecasting bard working magic through primordial and/or spirit world symbols/forces, probability manipulation (increased inspirations or dis-inspirations), spell selection arcane conjurations, druidic, or any divinations.
• "Duskblade": or whatever it was called, a roguey spellcaster, spell-thief kind of bard specialized in arcane magic and stealthy roguish (often dishonorable or illegal) skills.
• Troubadour: the specialized entertainer bard, wandering minstrel, seven-veils dancer, pied pipers, magical music/vocals specialist, ye olde fascination ability, spell selection limited to enchantment, illusion, and druidic magics, more skill dealing with crowds and interactive persuasion.

Martial Adept [nee "Monks"]: the poor lonely tacked on monk. Keep the Ki points as their "casting mechanic" but essentially give them a progression of supernatural abilities that matches/simulates a "half-caster" in frequency and power, I would also add a layer of player choice a la the Walrock's Patron + Pact, to include "martial arts style" (tiger, serpent, crane, etc...)

• Open Hand: as written. Nothing wrong here.
• Shadow: a specialized monk, as written, here's your ninja.
• Elemental: I would definitely specialize this into choosing a single element for "the Last Airbender" style elemental monks, not how it is currently implemented.
• Bladed Hand: weapon specialist with acrobatic and combat skills that combine/rival the Fighter's Swashbuckler and the Rogue's Acrobat. Agile specialized warriors, kensai types, non-shadow-magic ninjas, etc...
• Sun/Phoenix/whatever it is: Radiant damage, glowy divine clerical powers.

There we are...12 classes, 60 options, literally hundreds of character archetypes for the picking.

I feel like this is what 5e wanted [was supposed] to be... and, in large part, succeeded, I think. They just could have stretched in some places and condensed in others to give us a more overall "tight" package...and prevented a good amount (I would hope) of the crying and whining for the "more of this...," "not enough that...," "where's the other thing..."

But, ce'st la vie. Now that I've wasted half the day on this...I'mma gonna go do something else. Thoughts, comments, questions, all welcome.

Happy Thursday all.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

That is a pretty cool list of expansions.

However, as a relative new player, I'd urge the WotC to put such a thing in an expansion set rather than in the regular player's handbook. The learning curve of D&D is enormously steep, and a newbie player just does not need more choices. Obviously, individual players/DMs can implement it as they like.

 

[Raith5]

Good quality procrastination! I am pretty happy with/prefer domains for clerics but agree with many of these breakdowns - especially the martial classes. I do find the contrast in the detail in 5e between clerics and fighter very stark in terms of depth and flavor of the subclasses.

 

[Li Shenron]

But I got to thinking why/how things would have gone IF the 5e game had been released in a symmetrical way across class lines. i.e., some classes have 3 options, many 2, and for some reason clerics and wizards getting 7 or 8 each...at the very least the "big 4" could have been given equal options with the more specialized class concepts (paladins, monks, warlocks, etc...) having fewer.

Would it have limited or expanded the class options for 5e? Would it have limited or expanded the options for future publications and rolling releases (like the UA articles that threw out options for over a year)? Would it have been preferable or not to the fans?

I think it would have been mostly the same as now... someone would have complained at the lack of some traditional Wizard specializations, and perhaps design would have suffered by trying to fulfill 5 subclasses at all costs even without nice ideas to do so, but other than that the edition would have been the same.

Of your examples, I think the most interesting one is the Cleric. Your sample subclasses are IMHO more "archetypal" than the 5e domains. Had they gone that way, they could have still had domains as a separate class choice, in a way similar to Warlocks having a Pact type that is a choice separate from Patron.

 

[steeldragons]

That is a pretty cool list of expansions.

However, as a relative new player, I'd urge the WotC to put such a thing in an expansion set rather than in the regular player's handbook. The learning curve of D&D is enormously steep, and a newbie player just does not need more choices. Obviously, individual players/DMs can implement it as they like.

True. I get what you mean. But the pHB, as presented still had 12 classes. And with...Bbn 2 + Bd 2 + Cle 7 + Drd 2 + Ftr 3 + Mk 3 + Pal 3 + Rgr 2 + Scr 2 + Thf 3 + Wlk 3 + Wzd 8 eeeequalllls...um...40 (if my math is right. Which it rarely is, so you might want to check it...but I'm gonna say 40 .

Sooo, yeah, I guess it is a significant amount (50%) more options than were originally presented. You're right. Nevermind. Not really surprising they went with what they did.

 

[steeldragons]

Good quality procrastination! I am pretty happy with/prefer domains for clerics but agree with many of these breakdowns - especially the martial classes. I do find the contrast in the detail in 5e between clerics and fighter very stark in terms of depth and flavor of the subclasses.

Right?

Clerics (and most every other class) are presented with subclass options that offer very specific flavor (through their mechanics) and establish a fairly good idea of the cleric of a particular domain's place in the world. I very much enjoyed the divine spell "Spheres" of 2e and very much enjoy the domain framework, it is, itself an aberration from the development of other class' subclass options. That is, it lends a direction and a "feel" for how a cleric of said domain (and their powers) would interact with the world...but it really doesn't say anything about the cleric.

I would have preferred a breakdown of archetype, of the kind/direction of cleric, as I presented here (and have elsewhere in other class musings threads) to the mechanic/power specificity.

Like the wizard traditions do. These are your special school powers and your special features...but you are still, in the world, a "Necromancer" or an "Illusionist." So you're getting the specific powers AND the flavor AND the place in the world all balled up in your subclass mechanics.

AND/OR, as @Li Shenron astutely points out (and I really like the idea!), it would have been terribly simple (and made more sense and not had the warlock be "the only kid in the class with...") to build the domain differentiation in as a secondary player choice point.

Fighters got, "Here's your mechanics ["straightforawrd/simple" or "+maneuvers" or "+magic"]...do whatever you want with 'em."

Now, I applaud the fighter its broad open completely unconstrained framework as far as "flavor" or archetype is concerned. You can make pretty much any fighter and any fighter subclass into whatever kind of warrior guy you want. That is, unquestionably, by design.

But, at the same time, when every other class' subclass options are developed with at least some flavor and specificity as to what place they hold in the game setting/fiction: "I'm a Hunter." "I'm a Berserker." "I'm a Druid of the [this] Land" or "Bard seeking/interested in Lore", it is a noticeable difference in feel/flavor and as much a "limitation" as a "freedom" of the class...imho, of course.

 

[Phazonfish]

Mages["Wizards"]:

• Mage: the default generalist arcane magic-user.
• Illusionist: specialist "tricky" mage, mostly as written but spell selection limited to all Illusions, Enchantments, Divinations, and up to 3rd level Conjurations and Abjurations.
• Evoker: specialist "blasty" mage, mostly as written but spell selection limited to all Evocations, Transmutations, Abjurations, and up to 3rd level Conjurations and Divinations.
• Necromancer: specialist "dark/broody/misunderstood[or just plain evil]" mage, mostly as written, but spell selection limited to all Necromancy, Conjurations, Abjurations, and up to 3rd level Transmutations and Divinations.
• Swordcaster: specialist "mage-warrior," 1/2-caster progression; light armor to begin (medium armor as middling/high level feature), choice of 2 martial weapons added to proficiency list (to start, adding weapons as you increase level); may choose 1st and 2nd level spells from any school, must choose any 2 schools of magic to select 3rd and higher level spells from.

I like how you renamed Wizards so that the Mage class can have a Mage subclass.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There we are...12 classes, 60 options, literally hundreds of character archetypes for the picking.

That is a pretty cool list of expansions.

However,.... The learning curve of D&D is enormously steep, and a newbie player just does not need more choices.

So the PH presents 12 classes and 40 sub-classes. While steeldragons isn't net adding classes, he's net added 20 sub-classes. That's significant. Mabye 3 or 4 sub-classes per class would've been more reasonable?

4 for each of the 'big 4' = 16
3 for each of the 'other 8' = 24

That'd've been 12 classes & 40 sub-classes, just like the PH.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] I've advocated a similar approach for a while, calling for more fighter & rogue subclasses. My ideal for the PHB would have been something like: Bard 2 Barbarian 2 Cleric 7 Druid 2 Fighter 6 Monk 2 Ranger 2 Rogue 6 Sorcerer 2 Warlock 2 Wizard 8 = 41, close to PHB just with different distribution. Then I'd expand on Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Ranger', Sorcerer, and Warlock options is supplemental hardbacks.

One wild thought: what if there was no need for a "general default" fighter, wizard, or what have you? For example, there could be a generic rule - maybe in the customization chapter (alongside multiclassing & feats) - about forgoing choosing a subclass in favor of getting bonus feats / proficiencies / saving throws / known spells / certain class features (e.g. Fighting styles or Eldritch invocations). If there were just a bit more feats supporting casters, I think this could work very nicely.

EDIT: Here are my thoughts on how I'd ideally tweak the classes:

• Read Languages for rogues at 2nd, possibly with optional upgrade replacing bonus feat at 10th.
• Redesign fighter class, with ~7 new subclasses with more story that champion/battle master.
• Redesign sorcerer class, with an eye toward making it the "simple caster", and follow through on cool flavor that PHB doesn't follow up on mechanically.
• Turn sorcerer's Metamagic into feats, not class features.
• More subclasses for rogues, maybe 2 more on top of Arcane Trickster, Assassin, Thief, Mastermind, and Swashbuckler.
• Include a generic/default/no-subclass option for ALL classes as mentioned above.